BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF MAY 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 905/2015
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Regional Office, Sumangala Complex, (Opp. HDMC), 2nd Floor, Lamington Road, Hubli. (Sri M.R. Manoj Kumar) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
Sri Mohammed Rafi, S./o Sadulla Saheb, Aged about 23 years, R/o Kadri Road, Siddapura Post, Cundapura Taluk 576 229. (By Sri B.K. Vishwanath) | ..…Respondent/s |
ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.26.02.2015 passed in CC.No.04/2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi which directed the appellant to pay Rs.2,27,252/- towards own damage made by the complainant/respondent and further submits that the complainant/respondent claimed a compensation by virtue of the policy towards damages suffered to his vehicle due to accident. After receiving the claim form along with documents, the Opposite Party/appellant noticed that the driver had no valid driving license to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident and repudiated the claim. Against which the complainant/respondent filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service before the District Commission. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party/appellant to pay the abovesaid amount. The District Commission has not appreciated the defence taken by the Opposite Party/appellant that as on the date of accident the driver one Mr. Mohammed Rafi had only valid driving license to drive the LMV not transport vehicle whereas the vehicle involved in the accident is transport vehicle and he does not possesses any endorsement/Badge from RTO to drive the transport vehicle. The repudiation made by the Opposite Party/appellant is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy, hence, prayed to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission as the complainant/respondent is not entitled to get any compensation.
2. Heard the arguments.
3. On perusal of the certified copy of the Order and memorandum of appeal, we noticed that one Mr. Mohammed Rafi had valid driving license to drive LMV not transport vehicle. Whereas the vehicle involved in the accident is also LMV which is transport vehicle. The category of the vehicle is one and the same. Though there is no endorsement with respect to the driving of the transport vehicle issued by the RTO, the said driver had valid driving license to drive LMV. Mere having no badge/endorsement with respect to the driving of the transport vehicle, the claim amount be repudiated in total. The District Commission after appreciating the driving license of the driver and other documents had allowed the complaint. We do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the District Commission. We found that the appellant had not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The order passed by the District Commission is upheld. As such, the appeal fails. Hence, the following;
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant/respondent.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
